Raj HC | Judgment can be a binding precedent only for what has been considered and held in it; No Court can travel beyond facts mentioned and considered therein to cull out “ratio decidendi”

Rajasthan High Court: Mahendra Kumar Goyal J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner was charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B Penal Code, 1860 i.e. IPC. There is a categorical allegation against the petitioner forging and fabricating the transfer certificate of Class- VIII which he used along with his nomination papers submitted for contesting election for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Mundoti. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, i.e. CrPC. is filed against the order dated 05-12-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27-02-2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that allegation against him was of furnishing false information before the Returning Officer while submitting nomination papers and in view of provisions of Section 195(1)(a) CrPC, the complaint could have been filed by the public servant, i.e., by the Returning Officer only and no private complaint was maintainable. He further relied on a judgment Kiran Kanwar v State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4345/2019 stating that it involves identical facts and wherein proceedings which was initiated on behest of private complaint was quashed in view of the bar contained under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present case, the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence also and hence, the bar under Section 195 (1) (a) CrPC is not applicable. They, therefore, prayed that the criminal misc. petition be dismissed.

Section 195(1) (a) Cr.P.C. provides as under:-

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice a for offences relating to documents given in evidence-(1)

No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;”

The Court thus observed that in the present case, the allegations, beside submitting false information with the Returning Officer, are with regard to forging and fabricating a document also, for which private complaint was very well maintainable. The judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of  Kiran Kanwar (supra) has no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The Court thus held in regard to the case relied by the petitioners that “ it has specifically been observed that there was no allegation in the FIR of forging and fabricating any document, which is specifically levelled herein and hence, the same has no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

In view of the above, petition was dismissed.[Laluram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 55/2020, decided on 24-02-2021]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.